June 22, 2009

References to the shift in power to the consumer are now commonplace
within the output of journalists, bloggers, analysts, researchers,
futurists. I also speak about it all the time. And, if there is one
dominant characteristic of web 2.0, it is that the fine line
distinguishing actors from audience, sellers from buyers, politicians
from voters is either blurring, disappearing or causing a complete role
reversal. Banyak Film’s excellent documentary Us is Now, investigates some but not all these issues.

We have barely begun to appreciate the magnitude of this revolution, let alone the implications. Is
transparency itself the most potent “agent of change?” Can transparency
provide the protection and assurance that civil society needs to
function effectively or will it unleash a wave of disillusion, a
breakdown in trust, an unwillingness to delegate authority, a
reluctance to step forward and exercise oth leadership and
responsibility?

In the UK, two events – one recent and the other on-going – illustrate
how difficult the next few years are going to be as we adjust to these
new, transparent realities.

MP’s Expenses
For the past 6 or more weeks, the UK media has more or less forgotten
about the financial meltdown and the steady march of the recession
deeper into all regions and sectors of the economy. It was as if the
news of an empire in such rapid and indisputable decline was too much
and the rabble needed to be entertained and their attention diverted.
Romans sent gladiators and those pesky Christians to their deaths in
the Colisseum and, just like in the “X factor” and “Britain’s Got
Talent”, empowered the masses with the ability to determine the hapless
fate of those in the ring by signing thumbs up or down ( now the rabble
simply presses digits on their phones). So in sophisticated Britain,
the so-called bastion of democracy and ordered, enlightened government,
we send our elected representatives into the lion’s den.

For those living outside the UK, here’s a quick snapshot of events. A
British reporter started to apply the Freedom of Information Act to
investigate whether our political masters (MP=member of Parliament)
were playing by the rules in claiming their living expenses. It turns
out that many were “on the take”. It also turns out that the there was
this “understanding” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that the parliamentary
authorities would turn a blind eye to all but the most excessive and
fraudulent of claims, as expenses were viewed in Westminster as a way
of compensating MPs who could not be awarded legitimate pay increases
for political i.e. optical reasons. No “leader” had wanted to be seen
to approve pay increases for MPs.

The Daily Telegraph found some sensational culprits and the story took
on all the force of a juggernaut with MPs being named and shamed on a
daily basis and generating revelations that ranged from bizarre to
distasteful and back to ludicrous.

And so it became necessary to publish every expense claim of every
parliamentarian for the past five years in order to assuage the
justifiable anger of the British public. Clearly this was an auditing
task too great for even the Daily Telegraph. So its competitor, The
Guardian, saw an immediate opportunity to steal the baton of “Guardian
of the Public Interest” by using web 2.0 technology and by
crowdsourcing i.e. inviting the public to help with the analysis of
nearly half a million documents online – see story here.

So what’s my concern? I’m all for public accountability and think it
makes absolute sense for politicians to have a clear set of hard and
fast rules regarding living expenses and be made to live by the rules.
But I’m not sure that we’re ready to devolve the responsibility for
fairness and wise judgement to a crowd – whose biases, motivations,
competencies remain completely unknown and where no safeguards for
slander and mischief have been set in place, let alone conceived. Even
prior to the Guardian’s intervention, the review by the media was
taking on the air of a witchhunt. Does crowdsourcing have the potential
to lead to an electronic form of mob lynching? Do we know what we’re
getting into here? Is it appropriate to be applying the brakes? Can we
ensure that transparency accords fairness.
Watching the Watchers – keeping an eye on the police
In response to the question that Plato asked a mere 2.5 thousand years
ago and poet Juvenal posed in Latin a few hundred years later - “who
guards the guardians?” or “who watches the watchers?” – a group calling
themselves FIT watchers has been formed in the UK in response to the
policy of police to film and photography anyone involved in a
demonstration in case they become trouble makers. Climate change
activists and other protestors are aware that that police have used
this “evidence” to detain persons before a protest - a form of
pre-emptive strike, I presume.

It is both ironic and highly disturbing to think that while we applaud
the courage of men and women in Tehran fighting for their democratic
rights and freedoms, individuals are been treated quite brutally by
British bobbies and arrested simply for taking photos of the police
taking photos. This article
and very disturbing video, published in the Guardian today, reports on
an incident in the UK recently, when protesters gathered to express
outrage at the expansion of a major coal producing plant – Kingsnorth.
In this case, the individuals weren’t arrested for protesting but
simply observing and recording police behavior and conformity with the
rules of engagement.

These two events are highly relevant to the topic “agents of change”.
They remind us that change is rarely easy, often demands courage,
results in bruises or worse, and can produce very contradictory and
ironic outcomes. In the same week, a daily newspaper had engaged
several thousand watchdogs from the public to scrutinize politician’s
expense claims, while three individuals (heretofore anonymous members
of the public) were arrested and roughed up by the police force that is
supposed to protect them, simply for ensuring the police played according to the rules agreed by society.

In this case, the video, was not "user" generated content but had been recorded by the police themselves and obtained later. You'll see from the story that, while the women had to spend several distressing days in prison, all charges were dropped and the case is now under investigation.

So when you are watching the terrible scenes from Iran and thinking how lucky you are to be a free citizen, remember how fragile that freedom really is.

June 07, 2009

Last week the Global Humanitarian Forum produced a report titled The Anatomy of A Silent Crisis detailing the negative human impacts of a changing climate - essential reading at a time when western societies have become so celebrity obsessed. The same Forum was addressed last year by a brave 18 year old Rikisha Das Roya, who described the plight of the Sunderbans of India and Bangladesh as they cope with increased storms, flooding and rising sea levels.

Tragically - it is these same people who have been so devastatingly affected by Cyclone Aila that ripped through their land a week or so ago. They are the silent victims and need our help.

Fortunately, responsible operators, The Blue Yonder, Travel to Care and Help Tourism, who have witnessed the impacts and suffering first hand, have organized to provide material assistance and we can show we care by donating and raising awareness. Another positive sign of Responsible Tourism and Agents of Change @ Work.

Access to info as to how to donate and updates regarding this individual Silent Crisis is available here where there are links to Facebook pages. Please read, re-send, re-tweet and act. It shouldn't just be the victims who are the active agents of change....